Ex-power minister asks Appeal Court to quash 75-year sentence

From Godwin Tsa, Abuja

Former Minister of Power,  Saleh Mamman, has approached the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, seeking to overturn his conviction on 12 counts linked to an alleged N33.8 billion fraud, for which the Federal High Court, Abuja, sentenced him to consecutive prison terms totalling 75 years.

Through a notice of appeal dated May 26, 2026, filed by his legal team led by Femi Atteh, SAN, Mamman is asking the appellate court to set aside the judgment and discharge and acquit him.

The appeal is anchored on 18 grounds, chief among them an allegation that his right to fair hearing was violated when judgment was delivered in his absence on May 7, 2026, despite an earlier adjournment to June 9, 2026 for judgment.

His legal team argued that the judgment date was abridged without hearing notice being served on him, adding that he never waived his right to be present. They contended that this breached Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution and Section 352(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.

Other grounds of appeal include the allegation that the trial judge prevented his subpoenaed witness, Abdulkareem Ozi Ibrahim, from testifying in his defence, while allowing the prosecution to reopen examination-in-chief of the same witness after it had closed its case and the matter had been adjourned for cross-examination.

Mamman’s lawyers also argued that the conviction relied substantially on uncorroborated accomplice evidence and that judgment was entered on counts 7 to 12 to which no plea had been taken.

They further contended that the trial court wrongly found that funds from the Zungeru and Mambilla hydroelectric power projects were diverted for Mamman’s personal use, arguing that the funds were domiciled with the Central Bank of Nigeria and controlled by the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation.

According to the defence, Mamman was neither an approving authority nor a signatory to the accounts.

The appellant also alleged that key findings in the judgment were based on hearsay, while documentary evidence was disregarded, resulting in what his lawyers described as speculation.

He further challenged the trial court’s finding that he failed to explain the source of funds used to purchase a property at No. 12 Lungi Street, Wuse II, Abuja, arguing that the court improperly shifted the burden of proof onto him.

Mamman also challenged the admission of his extra-judicial statements, alleging that the requirements of Sections 15 and 17 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, were not complied with, including the absence of audio-visual recordings of the statements.

The former minister further alleged that the trial judge displayed bias against him throughout the proceedings, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal came as the Federal High Court, Abuja, struck out a separate application filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) seeking the forfeiture of properties allegedly linked to Mamman.

Justice James Omotosho struck out the motion dated July 29, 2026, and filed under Section 20 of the EFCC Act, 2004; Section 321 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015; and Section 6(6) of the 1999 Constitution in charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/273/2024, after prosecution counsel, Abba Mohammed, formally withdrew it.

Mohammed told the court that the withdrawal followed Mamman’s appeal against the entire judgment.

The motion had sought a consequential order permanently forfeiting to the Federal Government properties the EFCC said it traced to Mamman following his conviction and sentencing.

Defence counsel, Femi Atteh, did not oppose the withdrawal, and Justice Omotosho granted the application as prayed, striking out the motion in a brief ruling.

Mamman’s conviction and 75-year sentence have drawn criticism from his family and legal representatives, who have questioned aspects of the proceedings.

They have particularly raised concerns over the accelerated delivery and service of the judgment, as well as earlier defence complaints concerning disputed documents, witness contradictions, disclosure issues and what they described as weak evidentiary links.

The defence maintains that the issues require further scrutiny by the appellate court.